Axiom: Christian God exists and the Bible is true. page 3 (locked)

73 posts

Flag Post

If you were content to ignore it, as I expect the majority of atheists are, you would not see fit to constantly trumpet your anti-theist views and derail threads so you can swing your cock around.

Pay attention to what i write. I said i ignore god. Not religion. Religion has caused a lot of trouble in the past and still does. Any ideology that can turn you into a killer because of fanaticism is dangerous. And religion has that potential. Keeping it at check is not bad. Besides, did i miss the part where this thread had some kind of activity and i took it OT?

Yeah? Nothing you’ve said so far tells me you know what you’re talking about. For one thing, debate is a matter of opinions, not capital-f Facts. For another, you wield logic like a hammer, like it’s simple and straightforward. It isn’t. Finally, before you try to teach me how to debate, you might want to recognize that one addresses the argument in a debate – both Tuje and I have pointed out that a discussion about ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ is a more complicated and heavily philosophical then you seem to be comfortable with…oh, I’m sure you dish out an adequate, PHIL 101 understanding of Plato, bravo. But that bit of learning doesn’t fit together too well with the assumption that religion is bullshit and religious people are bullshit artists, as your posts continually insist.

If I seem upset, it is because your attitude on this thread and others shows a persistant disrespect for religious people, as well a certainty that logic is an alien concept to them. It’s a mindset I’ve encountered many times before and I have no patience for it. If you’re doing it unwittingly, here’s your wake-up call. If you’re doing it deliberately…goodbye.

Oh, so much agression and false accusations, where to begin?

“But that bit of learning doesn’t fit together too well with the assumption that religion is bullshit and religious people are bullshit artists, as your posts continually insist.”

My posts don’t insist on something like that, they insist on making it clear that Jesus isn’t a proven fact. Oh, proven fact i guess is capital-f Fact.

“both Tuje and I have pointed out that a discussion about ‘evidence’ and ‘facts’ is a more complicated and heavily philosophical then you seem to be comfortable with”

Evidence and facts are not a matter of opinion. Neither is logical thinking. The basis for propositional logic was laid down some 2000 years ago by a guy named Aristotle. Empirically there is nothing to suggest that the events of the Bible happened or that Jesus was a god. Bible talks about a great number of people who saw Jesus after he has risen from the dead. How come those people can’t be found anywhere outside the Bible? Remember, the Bible also speaks of dragons and unicorns. Let’s say that dragons are dinosaur fossils. But unicorns?

“it is because your attitude on this thread and others shows a persistant disrespect for religious people, as well a certainty that logic is an alien concept to them”

That argument is only half true. I don’t generalize, which seems to be a practice of yours however since you seem to like to generalize my ideas and whatnot. I do believe that for some religious people the idea of logic is completely lost to them. BUT there are many people who are religious and have my respect because they don’t simply look at their faith and disregard all other things.

 
Flag Post

Any ideology that can turn you into a killer because of fanaticism is dangerous. And religion has that potential. Keeping it at check is not bad.

Any ideology that turns otherwise reasonable people into fanatics is dangerous. Religion has that potential. So does anti-theistic atheism. Keeping it in check? Sure. But not by making reductionist arguments about it and broad appeals to supposed self-evident truths, whether they be God or Facts.

Evidence and facts are not a matter of opinion. Neither is logical thinking. The basis for propositional logic was laid down some 2000 years ago by a guy named Aristotle.

Really? Never heard of the guy.

Name-dropping doesn’t impress me. It just tells me you like to use it for effect rather than promote understanding.

Evidence is most certainly a matter of opinion. If you’d read Aristotle, you’d know that he specifically points that out, that what some people view as legitimate proofs isn’t proof at all to other people. He also makes it clear that this difference doesn’t imply one group of people is more ignorant or learned than another for accepting different proofs. Logical thinking is also a matter of opinion. You think it’s logical thinking that the God of the Old Testament is so different from the God of the NT that it automatically discounts Christianity. To me, that says you don’t know the various theological workarounds that people have come up with to explain the discrepancy. It also tells me you’re apparently unaware that the Jesus propaganda guys like Azolf promote about a loving God is only a small part of what Jesus said. There’s plenty of OT wrath in the NT; it’s just been sugar-coated to make messianic Judaism sound more appealing.

Empirically there is nothing to suggest that the events of the Bible happened or that Jesus was a god. Bible talks about a great number of people who saw Jesus after he has risen from the dead. How come those people can’t be found anywhere outside the Bible? Remember, the Bible also speaks of dragons and unicorns. Let’s say that dragons are dinosaur fossils. But unicorns?

Empirically, sure. What’s your point? If we’re talking about the historical accuracy of Jesus in the bible – as in the other active religion thread – then empiricism has every right to smash these fables. But if we’re talking in context of religion, and religious belief, I see no reason for it unless someone tries to make a play for creationism. The account in the bible, which makes no sense empirically, can nevertheless be accepted on faith, and reason has its place too…in tweezing out the odd bits that don’t make sense within the larger belief structure. That is, that coherent ideologies aren’t built on logical premisses, but on beliefs and assumptions about the world. You have to be able to accept those large assumptions for the sake of debating within that enclosed system (much like an AX thread), but the details, specifically the meaning of such stories, can be reasoned and questioned. If you’re unwilling to accept those terms then you’re left to criticize the system as a whole, from an outsider’s position, and it’s almost inevitable that you’re going to over-generalize and simplify in order to tackle it. It’s also inevitable that your position will become untenable because the adherents of that belief system will regard you as inimicably hostile.

That argument is only half true. I don’t generalize, which seems to be a practice of yours however since you seem to like to generalize my ideas and whatnot. I do believe that for some religious people the idea of logic is completely lost to them. BUT there are many people who are religious and have my respect because they don’t simply look at their faith and disregard all other things.

Nah, you do. Your understanding of theology is faulty but you’re unwilling to admit it. Dragons and unicorns? Maybe in revelations, or the prophets’ symbolic nonsense in the OT. Again though, it has no bearing. You bring it up for effect, to ridicule. If I were a Christian, as you painted me, I’d be insulted. As it is I’m just irritated by irrelevant anti-theist talking points.

Religious people who are willing to balance their faith with a certain rational flexibility of mind have my respect too. But if i’m debating theology it’s not like I can demand balance from my opponents without doing it myself. When you enter a faith-based debate, you have to be willing to give up that high-and-mighty empiricism, otherwise, what are you doing there except attacking religion? It’s why empiricists annoy me oftentimes more than hidebound Christians, because they make ideological demands on the Christians but they’re not willing to accept similar demands themselves. Thus such arguments go nowhere.

I’ll leave this on a final point: You’ve heard the phrase ‘nothing is sacred’? It’s commonly used by people right before they go on to loudly criticize what someone else considers sacred. It’s an absurd idea because in fact, everything – well, many things – are sacred. Everyone has certain beliefs that logic does not enter, even if it’s something as simple as the axiom “I am never wrong”. There is no point in trying to dispel these irrational beliefs, but they should at least be recognized, both by the people who hold them, and the people debating with them.

 
Flag Post

Any ideology that turns otherwise reasonable people into fanatics is dangerous. Religion has that potential. So does anti-theistic atheism. Keeping it in check? Sure. But not by making reductionist arguments about it and broad appeals to supposed self-evident truths, whether they be God or Facts.

Have you seen many atheist organizations acting outside the law to burn churches, buildings, kill people for being religious, etc? Atheism can’t turn you into a fanatic. Atheism doesn’t promise you anything. Religious does. Holy Wars, Crusades, KKK, all very well documented. Also, just to make sure that i won’t heat that ridiculous argument, no, communism and the crimes of Mao and Stallin aren’t atheistic acts. They didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they killed so that their communist parties would continue to rule in a dictatoric way.

Evidence is most certainly a matter of opinion. If you’d read Aristotle, you’d know that he specifically points that out, that what some people view as legitimate proofs isn’t proof at all to other people. He also makes it clear that this difference doesn’t imply one group of people is more ignorant or learned than another for accepting different proofs. Logical thinking is also a matter of opinion. You think it’s logical thinking that the God of the Old Testament is so different from the God of the NT that it automatically discounts Christianity. To me, that says you don’t know the various theological workarounds that people have come up with to explain the discrepancy. It also tells me you’re apparently unaware that the Jesus propaganda guys like Azolf promote about a loving God is only a small part of what Jesus said. There’s plenty of OT wrath in the NT; it’s just been sugar-coated to make messianic Judaism sound more appealing.

Again, you probably are too preoccupied to formulate your opinions that you don’t pay much attention to my opinions. I never said that looking at the difference between New and Old Testement is proof that Christianity is fake. In fact i challenge you to find me a quote where i said such a thing. What i present as evidence are the ridiculous errors between the Word of God when it comes to matters or nature and morals compared to scientifically PROVEN FACTS and also today’s world morals. Eg, Isaiah refers to the world as a circle, a flat object. Also, God numerous times told Israelites to conquer other nations and enslave them, slavery is however today morally wrong.

Religious people who are willing to balance their faith with a certain rational flexibility of mind have my respect too. But if i’m debating theology it’s not like I can demand balance from my opponents without doing it myself. When you enter a faith-based debate, you have to be willing to give up that high-and-mighty empiricism, otherwise, what are you doing there except attacking religion? It’s why empiricists annoy me oftentimes more than hidebound Christians, because they make ideological demands on the Christians but they’re not willing to accept similar demands themselves. Thus such arguments go nowhere.

So, suppose that we had an argument with Neo Nazis who felt that blood purity and a superior race should exist, simply because some mad man told them to do so. This analogy isn’t meant to equate Christians to Neo Nazis, i just want to make a point. Wouldn’t you ask for the Neo-Nazis empirical evidence that a superior race exists? Or would you simply skip by and let them believe whatever they want, regardless of potential harm?

 
Flag Post

Providing they only act on their beliefs within their own group, there is no harm posed by neo-nazis. Nor by any group with beliefs outside of the ‘norm’.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Evidence and facts are not a matter of opinion. Neither is logical thinking. The basis for propositional logic was laid down some 2000 years ago by a guy named Aristotle.

Really? Never heard of the guy.

Name-dropping doesn’t impress me. It just tells me you like to use it for effect rather than promote understanding.

Evidence is most certainly a matter of opinion. If you’d read Aristotle, you’d know that he specifically points that out, that what some people view as legitimate proofs isn’t proof at all to other people. He also makes it clear that this difference doesn’t imply one group of people is more ignorant or learned than another for accepting different proofs. Logical thinking is also a matter of opinion.

Aristotle defined logic as new and necessary knowledge. It’s not a matter of opinion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Providing they only act on their beliefs within their own group, there is no harm posed by neo-nazis. Nor by any group with beliefs outside of the ‘norm’.

Yes, however what happens when those groups feel that their norm is being offended?

 
Flag Post

They excise the individual who is trying to press that individual’s ideals upon all of them.

 
Flag Post

meh, screw this.

You leap to extreme comparisons, just like any other anti-theist fanatic. Neo-nazis, unicorns, Holy wars, etc. You pretend religion is totally to blame for what are essentially social problems (slavery, like the islamic veil, was a product of Semitic tribalism, that became doctrinated over time), conveniently ignoring the fact that it’s because of religious institutions that led to the abolition of slavery. Then you bowdlerize Aristotle to suit a positivist agenda. I’m done.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

meh, screw this.

You leap to extreme comparisons, just like any other anti-theist fanatic. Neo-nazis, unicorns, Holy wars, etc. You pretend religion is totally to blame for what are essentially social problems (slavery, like the islamic veil, was a product of Semitic tribalism, that became doctrinated over time), conveniently ignoring the fact that it’s because of religious institutions that led to the abolition of slavery. Then you bowdlerize Aristotle to suit a positivist agenda. I’m done.

So, just out of curiosity, what was your business here? You said time and time again that you are not a Christian. So, you weren’t here to discuss the Bible as the OP intended. You weren’t an atheist (obviously) so you weren’t here to point out the Bible’s fable like i am. You are not even a moderator wanting to tell me that my points don’t belong here because they are opposite to the AX thread.
(for the record, i am new here so i wasn’t aware about what AX’s thread are about until after the OP started quoting my posts. Since he didn’t ask me to leave i thought it was okay to stay and argue. Had he done otherwise, i would have left. In fact, he still can. The moment he says that i shouldn’t be here i will leave too. See, unlike your misconceived ideas i have no problem admiting my mistakes.)
Now, where was i? Oh yeah, what was your business here? Admit it, you were just here to feed your ego by arguing with me. Since you like to label me even though i said not too i will do the same too. Golden Rule, right? You say that you are not a Christian. I will take you on your word about that and not call you a liar. Instead i will say that you are a believer of some religion which is connected to Christianity. A Jew, maybe?

 
Flag Post

Have you seen many atheist organizations acting outside the law to burn churches, buildings, kill people for being religious, etc?

How about the Red Guard? Or the Khmer Rouge? I suppose technically not outside the law. But an example of deeply fanatical atheists systematically attacking and destroying religions.

Also, just to make sure that i won’t heat that ridiculous argument, no, communism and the crimes of Mao and Stallin aren’t atheistic acts. They didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they killed so that their communist parties would continue to rule in a dictatoric way.

You seem to be hiding behind umbrellas. If I start some atheist boot stomping program and called it a “nationalist” front, does that mean it no longer posses any atheist ideology? Of course not. Many Communist political organizations had specific, hostile relationships to religion. Were they encompassed in a broader range of beliefs? Certainly. The Red Guard burned churches and slaughtered priests on the specific basis of their religion and cleansing China of their beliefs and influence.

 
Flag Post

Atheism can’t turn you into a fanatic.

I’ve seen a couple of atheists here who would rather see all Christians dead. In these forums.

crimes of Mao and Stallin aren’t atheistic acts. They didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they killed so that their communist parties would continue to rule in a dictatoric way.

Quite a bold claim. If I have understood correctly, Lenin and Stalin were highly ideological persons and they genuinely thought that religion is “an opiate of the people that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society.”

 
Flag Post

I’m a deist – who is well aware of the irrationality of the belief, thank you – and I did indeed come here to debate the bible within the confines of the AX. You see, unlike you, I try to put aside my prejudices with organized religion so I can debate with Christians without unnecessarily ridiculing their beliefs. Doesn’t always work, of course, and the first page of the thread is a good example of how I screwed the pooch on that. I was raised a Catholic and I still have a healthy respect for Christian institutions, but no belief in their ability to intercede for god.

However, it doesn’t much matter if i’m a deist or a muslim, or whatever. I could’ve easily been an atheist. I know many, both here, and in real life, who would similarly have objections to your unbalanced attacks on religion, mainly because it dims the impression Christian come to have for non-believers…it reduces their ability to discuss theology without it leading to a shit show. Case in point, the other active religion thread. Both mild criticisms and harsh attacks of Christianity were taken by the Christians there as the words of intolerant bigots. How’d it come to that? Were they always so over-sensitive? I doubt that. I posit it’s something they learn over time. They learn to mistake criticism for neo-atheist slurs because they’ve become accustomed to hearing the latter, so they become so thin-skinned that gentle critiques are treated as the same category of opinion.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Have you seen many atheist organizations acting outside the law to burn churches, buildings, kill people for being religious, etc?

How about the Red Guard? Or the Khmer Rouge? I suppose technically not outside the law. But an example of deeply fanatical atheists systematically attacking and destroying religions.

Also, just to make sure that i won’t heat that ridiculous argument, no, communism and the crimes of Mao and Stallin aren’t atheistic acts. They didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they killed so that their communist parties would continue to rule in a dictatoric way.

You seem to be hiding behind umbrellas. If I start some atheist boot stomping program and called it a “nationalist” front, does that mean it no longer posses any atheist ideology? Of course not. Many Communist political organizations had specific, hostile relationships to religion. Were they encompassed in a broader range of beliefs? Certainly. The Red Guard burned churches and slaughtered priests on the specific basis of their religion and cleansing China of their beliefs and influence.

Originally posted by TuJe:

Atheism can’t turn you into a fanatic.

I’ve seen a couple of atheists here who would rather see all Christians dead. In these forums.

crimes of Mao and Stallin aren’t atheistic acts. They didn’t kill in the name of atheism, they killed so that their communist parties would continue to rule in a dictatoric way.

Quite a bold claim. If I have understood correctly, Lenin and Stalin were highly ideological persons and they genuinely thought that religion is “an opiate of the people that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society.”

Communists killed people in order for their political parties to stay in power. The fact that they had anti-theistic views is besides the point. Same kind of logic could suggest that “Stallin had a moustache, therefore people with moustache’s are mass murderers”. They killed for their tyranical regimes to remain in power. Now, let’s take the Crusades. The Crusades were wars to prove that the Jesus was better than Allah. I am aware that those wars took place for wealth and land. But what did the soldiers? They were told that they were fighting and dying for Jesus. Not for the kings’ and priests’ pockets. See the difference?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I’m a deist – who is well aware of the irrationality of the belief, thank you – and I did indeed come here to debate the bible within the confines of the AX. You see, unlike you, I try to put aside my prejudices with organized religion so I can debate with Christians without unnecessarily ridiculing their beliefs. Doesn’t always work, of course, and the first page of the thread is a good example of how I screwed the pooch on that. I was raised a Catholic and I still have a healthy respect for Christian institutions, but no belief in their ability to intercede for god.

However, it doesn’t much matter if i’m a deist or a muslim, or whatever. I could’ve easily been an atheist. I know many, both here, and in real life, who would similarly have objections to your unbalanced attacks on religion, mainly because it dims the impression Christian come to have for non-believers…it reduces their ability to discuss theology without it leading to a shit show. Case in point, the other active religion thread. Both mild criticisms and harsh attacks of Christianity were taken by the Christians there as the words of intolerant bigots. How’d it come to that? Were they always so over-sensitive? I doubt that. I posit it’s something they learn over time. They learn to mistake criticism for neo-atheist slurs because they’ve become accustomed to hearing the latter, so they become so thin-skinned that gentle critiques are treated as the same category of opinion.

I can have civil discussions with Christians. All my friends are Christians, none is atheist or anything else. Never had any problem with them. I can have a good discussion and argument as long as the person opposing me understands the limitations of his/her believes. I don’t ask them to ridicule their believes. I don’t ask them to forsake them. I don’t even care for them to say i am right. What i want them is to understand that what their believes are based on is faith and NOT evidence and facts. When someone comes and tells me “Jesus is the one true god” and i ask “how do you know?” and they respond “because the Bible says so” then for me it’s open season for making fun of them because they take that book which divides them in so many denominations and make it an absolute. If they say “i don’t know, i just feel like that”, then i can’t make fun of them. And i don’t want to either. I will question them to see what exactly they feel and that’s that.

 
Flag Post

Those soldiers also pillaged Byzantine, only due to its riches.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TuJe:

Those soldiers also pillaged Byzantine, only due to its riches.

I know, i am not denying history. That is what proves the real purpose of the Crusades. That being said, the argument that they used the idea of Jesus as a front isn’t debunked just because they pillaged Constantinopole.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by TuJe:

Atheism can’t turn you into a fanatic.

I’ve seen a couple of atheists here who would rather see all Christians dead. In these forums.

You’re thinking of the one who still drops by occasionally, but was damn proud of having torn down all the public christmas decorations in his hometown, and forced the school to cancel christmas celebrations last year, because it was an “oppressive tool of religion”?

 
Flag Post

Communists killed people in order for their political parties to stay in power. The fact that they had anti-theistic views is besides the point. Same kind of logic could suggest that “Stallin had a moustache, therefore people with moustache’s are mass murderers”. They killed for their tyranical regimes to remain in power. Now, let’s take the Crusades. The Crusades were wars to prove that the Jesus was better than Allah. I am aware that those wars took place for wealth and land. But what did the soldiers? They were told that they were fighting and dying for Jesus. Not for the kings’ and priests’ pockets. See the difference?

Once again you are hiding behind valid but irrelevant claims. Did, “Communists kill people so their party could stay in power”? Why, yes, certainly. Does that mean that /all/ people communists killed were part of some power quo? Expressly not. Further, let us abandon “communists” as a description. Let us look at specific political movements/idealogies within select regions and cultures. Looking at, or calling on, all Communists will do nothing but diffuse and muddy things.

So, no, the fact they had anti-theistic views was not besides the point. It was expressly the point. The Khmer Rouge and the Chinese Red Guard specifically murdered religious people, and destroyed religious objects, on the basis of wiping out religious ideology. Do you disagree with that statement? They were atheistic zealots set upon wiping out religious through force and violence.

No, the same sort of logic would not suggest your claims at all. They pursued specifically anti religious crusades that were violent and extreme in character. It is not over identifying sweeping universal violence with the specific groups it encounters but violence that was targeted since inception against those groups.

Also your understanding of “the Crusades” could use a little brushing up. The reasons and motives for the Crusades themselves varied from crusade to crusade. You’re already guilty of over generalizing the myriad of reasons into one sweeping claim. I would suggest the first Crusade as an example, was less over ‘Jesus is better the Allah’, and far more that ‘a large, organized and foreign culture is invading us successfully. We need to unify to make a stronger military front, and therefor appeal to common and powerful cultural precepts.’

As for wealth and land, they have their fair claim to any war. Although it is wrong to suggest that the soldiers themselves had no stake in that. Part of the appeal of the Crusades to the common foot soldiers was the tremendous amount of spoils and land that was up for grabs by everyone. It really was not the existing Kings or Priests that stood to gain very much from the spoil. They were quite far away and only had desperate soldiers as intermediaries. The entire area was quite open to forming new kings, new priests, a separate socio economic military force. The most notable example of that in effect was the rise of the Templars.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

So, no, the fact they had anti-theistic views was not besides the point. It was expressly the point. The Khmer Rouge and the Chinese Red Guard specifically murdered religious people, and destroyed religious objects, on the basis of wiping out religious ideology. Do you disagree with that statement? They were atheistic zealots set upon wiping out religious through force and violence.

No, the same sort of logic would not suggest your claims at all. They pursued specifically anti religious crusades that were violent and extreme in character. It is not over identifying sweeping universal violence with the specific groups it encounters but violence that was targeted since inception against those groups.

I would disagree with the above. As far as the Khmers go(i don´t know enough about the red guard). They themselves were influenced heavily by Buddhism and thus calling them Atheist is at least technically false.
But especially there where noticeable differences in how different religions where prosecuted. Looking at the differences reveals the motives behind the prosecution.
In case of Buddhism(i am generalizing a bit here since some types of Buddhism fared worse) the normal believers got away relatively well as long as they integrated into the programs. The problems the Khmer had where with Buddhist organizations(which did not fit the concept of the agrarian revolution), Buddhist religion that was seen as foreign and with individuals(intellectuals, people who because of their religion refused to follow their orders and etc.).

The foreign Religions or those that where deemed foreign (including Christianity, Islam and some types of Buddhism) where prosecuted because they were foreign and everything foreign was bad imperial influence. The Khmer were very nationalistic, racist and xenophobic.

And the above is part of the reason why 95% of the people in Cambodia are Buddhist today and not Atheist.

 
Flag Post

I would disagree with the above. As far as the Khmers go(i don´t know enough about the red guard). They themselves were influenced heavily by Buddhism and thus calling them Atheist is at least technically false.

What? The Khmer Rouge tried to wipe out Buddhism in Cambodia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Cambodia

“By the time of the Vietnamese invasion in 1979, nearly every monk and religious intellectual had been either murdered or driven into exile, and nearly every temple and Buddhist temple and library had been destroyed.
The Khmer Rouge policies towards Buddhism- which included the forcible disrobing of monks, the destruction of monasteries, and, ultimately, the execution of uncooperative monks effectively destroyed Cambodia’s Buddhist institutions.10 Monks who did not flee and avoided execution lived among the laity”

But especially there where noticeable differences in how different religions where prosecuted. Looking at the differences reveals the motives behind the prosecution. In case of Buddhism(i am generalizing a bit here since some types of Buddhism fared worse) the normal believers got away relatively well as long as they integrated into the programs. The problems the Khmer had where with Buddhist organizations(which did not fit the concept of the agrarian revolution), Buddhist religion that was seen as foreign and with individuals(intellectuals, people who because of their religion refused to follow their orders and etc.).

The Khmer Rouge were systematically trying to destroy all religion within Cambodia. Those who were Buddhist and submitted to dismantling tended not to get summarily executed. All religions were officially banned by the Khmer and it is virtually the only period in Cambodian history where it was not the recognized state religion.

Do you have any citations what so ever? What you are saying has no grounds.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

I would disagree with the above. As far as the Khmers go(i don´t know enough about the red guard). They themselves were influenced heavily by Buddhism and thus calling them Atheist is at least technically false.

What? The Khmer Rouge tried to wipe out Buddhism in Cambodia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_in_Cambodia

“By the time of the Vietnamese invasion in 1979, nearly every monk and religious intellectual had been either murdered or driven into exile, and nearly every temple and Buddhist temple and library had been destroyed.
The Khmer Rouge policies towards Buddhism- which included the forcible disrobing of monks, the destruction of monasteries, and, ultimately, the execution of uncooperative monks effectively destroyed Cambodia’s Buddhist institutions.10 Monks who did not flee and avoided execution lived among the laity”

But especially there where noticeable differences in how different religions where prosecuted. Looking at the differences reveals the motives behind the prosecution. In case of Buddhism(i am generalizing a bit here since some types of Buddhism fared worse) the normal believers got away relatively well as long as they integrated into the programs. The problems the Khmer had where with Buddhist organizations(which did not fit the concept of the agrarian revolution), Buddhist religion that was seen as foreign and with individuals(intellectuals, people who because of their religion refused to follow their orders and etc.).

The Khmer Rouge were systematically trying to destroy all religion within Cambodia. Those who were Buddhist and submitted to dismantling tended not to get summarily executed. All religions were officially banned by the Khmer and it is virtually the only period in Cambodian history where it was not the recognized state religion.

Do you have any citations what so ever? What you are saying has no grounds.

If you take the time to step back and read what I wrote and what you sourced very carefully you might notice something. I will give you a hint there is a difference between personal belief and organized religion.

For the sources i will have to dig a bit more(later need sleep now its 2Am here). Don´t have the original sources i used to have anymore, tried looking for some online before posting the previous post and to reassure myself that i was not talking bulshit(i was writing from memory). While i did find Reassurance on the wiki pages i looked up, thats only because i can read it between the lines.

 
Flag Post

Axiom means I can’t say otherwise right?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Rpoman2009:

Axiom means I can’t say otherwise right?

About the only way around that is with a reductio ad absurdum. Use with EXTREME caution, and have your best freind and a random troll double check your argument for flaws.

Anyways…
My favorite interpretation of the book of revelation is that the beast was the roman papacy. Which, in turn, is quite compatible with “the crusades were wrong”.

Ancient isreal (after 40 years in the desert)….well, while they had direct orders from God sometimes, they did a terrible job remembering that those orders included injunctions that changed from fight to fight. I think one place was “let the women live” and another was “don’t take ANYTHING from the place. Burn it.” not sure about the first one, but pretty sure the second happened and they broke it.

And I think these two are pretty appropriate quotes:
“Go ye to ALL the world”.
“The meek shall inherit the earth”.